On Failing to Impress with Oblivion

Thematically similar to Moon (2009), with some of Wall-E’s (2008) visual style and a dénouement straight out of Independence Day (1996), Oblivion calls on many great films from the science fiction genre but fails to establish itself as a individual product.

The story is sound and after the film’s conclusion when one thinks back on it, the idea provokes debate. Yet, it is a fault of the direction that during the film, especially the first two acts, Oblivion is boring. The actors (all great in previous films) deliver their lines without passion and Oblivion seems to rest on it’s settings, hoping these will impress us enough to forget the drawn out story and poor direction. CGI should be there to complement the story whereas in Oblivion it takes priority over it. Unfortunately the CGI, while impressive, is nothing we haven’t seen before.

By the time the third act comes, the film comes to life, but it is not enough to secure Oblivion a worthy place in the canon of science fiction cinema. In the hands of a better director Oblivion could have been something. A Spielberg for example would have really highlighted the story’s ethical questions, rather than disregarding them as if they were too complicated for audiences. However, it appears we will be given another chance at seeing a similar story delivered with more skill when Elysium arrives later this year.    

On Trance

Never one to make the easy choice by working in a similar genre or take an easy directing choice, Danny Boyle follows his we-all-know-how-it-ends-story, 127 Hours (2010) with Trance. Trance is about and partially set inside the mind and therefore draws thematic links with recent philosophy of the mind cinema such as Memento (2000), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) and Inception (2010). However, Boyle has been quite clear that Trance is his tribute to Nicolas Roeg.

If it were nothing else, Trance is visually a beautiful film. Boyle plays with colour, light and shadow to create an aesthetic treat, relevant for a film to do with art. However, Trance is so much more that visually pleasing, yet it does require one giant leap of faith. We are required to suspend our disbelief that hypnotherapy can have a powerful hold over people to the extent that the hypnotherapist can influence them to do anything. This, Trance tells us, is possible with only 5% of the population. Whether this is true or not, on film it falls more into the realm of fantasy than reality and that only adds to Trance’s appeal.

If you accept the hypnotherapy the film is gripping. The script, by Joe Ahearne and John Hodge is impressively intelligent, balancing the complex inner outer mind shifts with skill and ensuring the conclusion is clear. Characters are also very smartly drawn and force us to question who we think is right and wrong. Yet, perhaps most impressive in a film so routed in fantasy and abstract imagery is that the story is heart wrenchingly real and ultimately a tragic love triangle.

Trance is many things and defies easy categorisation, much like Boyle himself. But whatever it is, it deserves seeing.

On Welcome to the Punch

In 1995 Michael Mann set the bar for city based crime cinema with close cop/robber relationships with Heat. Mann set the bar high and it doesn’t getter better than the Pacino/De Niro film. Eran Creevy’s second directorial feature, Welcome to the Punch, draws many comparisons with Mann’s film and suffers for them. Punch lacks the dramatic weight and quality script that has made Heat such a classic. Creevy’s camera explores and shoots London with great skill and perhaps this is something he has taken from the cityscapes of Mann’s films.

To look at Punch away from the Heat comparison, it is enjoyable but on a surface level only. The film looks good and the mise-en-scene is carefully crafted. It is refreshing to see London used to its full potential on the big screen. Yet Creevy seems to come from the school of filmmaking that promotes the MTV style of editing. Punch moves so quickly and at times is an assault on the senses. This results in a lack of connection to the characters and therefore there is no engagement with the story, just with the visuals. Punch has the ability to occasionally shock and the acting is good, but this is not the crime film that London deserves, although, it looks like it should be.   

On Soderbergh and Side Effects

As a film Side Effects is a very well crafted pharmaceutical thriller, with a slight third act dip that takes the narrative twists one step too far. Contextually, it is more important as Side Effects could potentially be Steven Soderbergh’s last feature length film.

Soderbergh has, since 1989 created a body of films that ranks him as a master of American cinema. The diversity in his films – Sex, Lies and Videotape (1989) Erin Brockovich (2000), Solaris (2002), Magic Mike (2012) – may separate him from auteurs like Scorsese or Malick, but he is undeniably a master of his craft. He has proven himself able to work in any genre and a real actors director, pulling human performances out of actors regardless of the seriousness of the story. Whether it is an utterly convincing Benicio Del Toro in Che Part 1 & 2 or a sympathetic stripper in Magic Mike.

Is Side Effects the film Soderbergh should leave on? It is certainly not his best film, but neither is it in any way superfluous. It is extremely well crafted and directed (as expected) and the story is relevant and gripping, being able to switch sub genres and character focus without losing pace. Admittedly it does lose some of that appeal towards the end, but this doesn’t detract from the overall enjoyment.

Should Soderbergh choose to leave the medium of film he will not solely be remembered for his last film, as his canon of work is too impressive. However, Side Effects will also leave audiences wanting more and welcoming him back anytime he decides to return. 

On Style and Stoker

South Korean director, Chan-Wook Park, most known for his violent revenge films has, under the radar, released a gothic, American psychological thriller that is one of the best films of the year so far.

Park manages to make Gothic stylish with his inventive camera work and beautifully designed sets. 

Yet this is far from style without substance, the film is gripping, despite being slowly paced. The acting is terrific, making us consistently question the motives of the characters. While being a far from original story, or far from original characters, Stoker treats this story of misidentification and family relations with a unique eye. Most notable is Park’s use of sound that cleverly links the scenes and recalls past narrative features to link characters and narrative threads.

Already massively respected for his foreign language films, Park has shown no diminishing quality in tackling an English language story. Should not be forgotten in the next awards season. 

On Cloud Atlas

After seeing the free flowing, loose narrative of To The Wonder, Cloud Atlas comes as something of a smack in the face. There are several, equally important narratives set throughout history (including some dystopian futures) and including the same actors playing different characters. You would expect to be confused.

However, the most remarkable feature of Cloud Atlas is that directors, Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski keep the whole experience lucid and graceful. Some of the stories work fantastically well, while others carry less impact. Overall the result is not dissimilar to watching several short stories that have been chopped up and then randomly thrown together. The stories are best compared thematically rather than attempting to connect the characters and the holistic message is unclear. The effect is also rather cold. Due to the erratic storytelling it is difficult to invest in any of the characters and while the film is visually to be admired, it leaves with a feeling of emptiness and lack of emotional attachment. Regardless, Could Atlas is brave filmmaking and a mostly enjoyable experience.  

On To The Wonder

Terrence Malick’s To The Wonder comes just one year after his award winning The Tree of Life (2011). Rumoured to be even less narrative bound than The Tree of Life, To The Wonder arrives as a 100-minute romance with idiosyncratic Malickian touches.

Of the director’s work it thematically and stylistically combines The Tree of Life with his second feature, the incredible Days of Heaven (1978). To The Wonder tells the story of Neil, a reticent mid Western American and Marina, a vivacious Parisian. Their romance is passionate and sudden, but doomed by differences and unwillingness on Neil’s part to commit. After a visa expiry, Marina returns to Paris where she becomes increasingly depressed losing her 10-year-old daughter’s affections to the estranged father. In America, Neil becomes romantically involved with a childhood sweetheart. Marina returns to America forcing Neil to break off his childhood romance and attempt to rekindle his love with Marina.

The narrative is straightforward (a love triangle, not unlike Days of Heaven) yet it is delivered with the looseness that Malick has become known for. However it is accessible (more so for fans of his work) and when Marina is on screen To The Wonder is majestic. Marina, played by Olga Kurylenko, is the heart and soul of the film and when midway she temporarily departs, the film loses its grip and Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams (playing Neil and his childhood sweetheart) are unable to capture in their performances the freedom that Malickian characters require.

Malick films Kurylenko always moving, spinning, jumping or rolling, connoting the evanescence and vitality of her character. Like the natural environment that Malick so beautifully frames and shoots, Marina is a part of the natural, spinning like a leaf or swaying like the long grass surrounding her American home. Neil on the other hand is static, only coming to life in anger and it is no surprise that his job requires him to take from and destroy the natural world.

The film does suffer from a midway lull, but there is beauty in the images and To The Wonder further highlights that there are few directors as in tune with the beauty of the natural world that surrounds us every day and our interaction with it as Terrence Malick.